Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1703 (2026)

Rebuttal evidence; affirmative defense; burden of proof; referee; costs.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT

Act 451 of 1994

324.1703 Rebuttal evidence; affirmative defense; burden of proof; referee; costs.

Sec. 1703.

(1) When the plaintiff in the action has made a prima facie showing that the conduct of the defendant has polluted, impaired, or destroyed or is likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources or the public trust in these resources, the defendant may rebut the prima facie showing by the submission of evidence to the contrary. The defendant may also show, by way of an affirmative defense, that there is no feasible and prudent alternative to defendant's conduct and that his or her conduct is consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety, and welfare in light of the state's paramount concern for the protection of its natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Except as to the affirmative defense, the principles of burden of proof and weight of the evidence generally applicable in civil actions in the circuit courts apply to actions brought under this part.

(2) The court may appoint a master or referee, who shall be a disinterested person and technically qualified, to take testimony and make a record and a report of his or her findings to the court in the action.

(3) Costs may be apportioned to the parties if the interests of justice require.

History: 1994, Act 451, Eff. Mar. 30, 1995

PopularName Notes:

Act 451

PopularName Notes:

NREPA

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 20 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 14× “Establishing a MEPA Claim Under MEPA, a party may maintain an action against any person "for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”

Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 684 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 7× “” MCL 324.1703(1). The defendant may rebut the plaintiff’s showing with contrary evidence or raise an affirmative defense that (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the conduct and (2) the “conduct is consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety, and…”

Anglers of the Ausable, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 488 Mich. 69 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 18× “natural resources or the public trust in these resources” under MCL 324.1703(1). Indeed, before Preserve the Dunes, this Court observed that a violation of a permitting procedure can support a prima facie claim under MEPA.”

Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 655 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “63709, the general standard of permitting for mining in any dune area, which mirrors the standard set forth in the mepa under MCL 324.1703. Judge Schofield’s reasoning effectively eliminated MCL 324.”

Nemeth v. Abonmarche Dev., Inc, 576 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “§ 324.1703(3); M.S.A. § 13A.1703(3). The majority correctly notes that the Legislature, since the enactment of the MEPA, has enacted a host of remedial environmental statutes that allow for the apportionment of attorney fees.”

City of Jackson v. Thompson-McCully Co., 608 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “” MCL 324.1703(1); MSA 13A. 1703(1). The MEPA does not impose specific requirements or standards; it allows courts to determine any adverse environmental effects and take appropriate action.”

Glen Lake-Crystal River Watershed Riparians v. Glen Lake Ass'n, 695 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “…the propriety of the DEQ or NPS involvement as disinterested, technically qualified “masters” under MEPA. See MCL 324.1703(2).”

Genesco, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Env't Quality, 645 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “MCL 324.1703(1); City of Jackson v Thompson-McCully Co, LLC, 239 Mich App 482, 487 ; 608 NW2d 531 (2000).”

Anglers of AuSable, Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 770 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “Regarding intervention in permit proceedings, MEPA “requires a potential intervenor to file a pleading asserting that the proceeding or action for judicial review involves conduct that has violated, or is likely to violate, MEPA.”

Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Cleveland Cliffs Iron Co., 684 N.W.2d 800 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 12× “MCL 324.1703. Hence, there will always be alleged actual or imminent harm that will ensure that cases like this one will be ripe and that they will not be moot.”

Model Laundries & Dry Cleaners v. Amoco Corp., 548 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “On appeal, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to attorney fees pursuant to specific provisions of both the MEPA and the MERA.”

Mich. Bear Hunters Ass'n, Inc. v. Mich. Nat. Res. Com'n, 746 N.W.2d 320 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “After considering the evidence presented, the circuit court reversed the NRC's decision to permit a bobcat-trapping season in the NLP and permanently enjoined defendants from sanctioning a bobcat-trapping season in the NLP until the NRC complied with MCL 324.1703 and MCL…”

Show all 20 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1703(1) — 16 cases

Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 684 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 2004). “” MCL 324.1703(1). The defendant may rebut the plaintiff’s showing with contrary evidence or raise an affirmative defense that (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the conduct and (2) the “conduct is consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety, and…”

Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation v. Nestlé Waters North Am. Inc, 709 N.W.2d 174 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Establishing a MEPA Claim Under MEPA, a party may maintain an action against any person "for the protection of the air, water, and other natural resources and the public trust in these resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction.”

Anglers of the Ausable, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 488 Mich. 69 (Mich. 2010). “natural resources or the public trust in these resources” under MCL 324.1703(1). Indeed, before Preserve the Dunes, this Court observed that a violation of a permitting procedure can support a prima facie claim under MEPA.”

City of Jackson v. Thompson-McCully Co., 608 N.W.2d 531 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “” MCL 324.1703(1); MSA 13A. 1703(1). The MEPA does not impose specific requirements or standards; it allows courts to determine any adverse environmental effects and take appropriate action.”

Genesco, Inc. v. Michigan Dep't of Env't Quality, 645 N.W.2d 319 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “MCL 324.1703(1); City of Jackson v Thompson-McCully Co, LLC, 239 Mich App 482, 487 ; 608 NW2d 531 (2000).”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1703(2) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.1703(3) — 4 cases

Nemeth v. Abonmarche Dev., Inc, 576 N.W.2d 641 (Mich. 1998). “§ 324.1703(3); M.S.A. § 13A.1703(3). The majority correctly notes that the Legislature, since the enactment of the MEPA, has enacted a host of remedial environmental statutes that allow for the apportionment of attorney fees.”

Model Laundries & Dry Cleaners v. Amoco Corp., 548 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “On appeal, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to attorney fees pursuant to specific provisions of both the MEPA and the MERA.”

Anglers of AuSable, Inc. v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 770 N.W.2d 359 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Regarding intervention in permit proceedings, MEPA “requires a potential intervenor to file a pleading asserting that the proceeding or action for judicial review involves conduct that has violated, or is likely to violate, MEPA.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.